Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by narrowing results to engines that return citation URLs, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or whether the check is point-in-time.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core condition, and the engine parenthetical is informative rather than filler. The trailing dash clause ('missed brand attributions') is a mild restatement of what the sentence already said.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, single-optional-param list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what's needed to call it correctly. It could still be stronger on whether results are scoped to a configured domain or a time window, but nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is only one parameter (limit) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating the 1-100 range and default of 50. The description adds no meaning about the limit or its interaction with result ordering, so the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Find) and a precisely bounded resource (GEO analyses where the domain was cited but the brand name was absent), plus names the engines involved (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude). An agent can tell this is a filtered list of a known entity type, though it never names a sibling such as get_geo_analysis to draw the single-vs-list boundary explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The use case is strongly implied — the agent should call this when hunting for unattributed brand mentions — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g., get_geo_analysis for a single analysis, or list_llm_sources for engine coverage).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.